Daly v Tipperary Centre for Independent Living Ltd

JurisdictionIreland
CourtEmployment Appeal Tribunal (Ireland)
Judgment Date11 Mar 2004
Judgment citation (vLex)[2004] 3 JIEC 1103

Employment Appeals Tribunal

EAT: Daly v Tipperary Centre for Independent Living Ltd.

Abstract:

EAT - Employment law - Unfair dismissal - Alleged sexual harassment - Claimant dismissed - Whether claimant afforded fair procedures - Whether claimant informed of purpose of meeting - Whether claimant allowed representation - Unfair Dismissals Acts 1997 to 2001 - Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts 1973 to 2001

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

CASE NO.

UD1057/2002 MN2888/2002

CLAIMS OF

Edward Daly, 58 Irishtown, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary

against

Tipperary Centre For Independent Living Ltd Unit 3; Stradavoher, Thurles, Co. Tipperary

under

UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2001

MINIMUM NOTICE AND TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT ACTS, 1973 TO 2001

I certify that the Tribunal

(Division of Tribunal)

Chairman:

Ms. K.T. O'Mahony BL

Members:

Mr. S. Power

Ms. M. Burke

heard this claim at Clonmel on 30th April 2003

and 18th September 2003

Facts The claimant was employed as a programme manager. He asked to attend a meeting and an allegation of sexual harassment of a secretary was put to him. The respondent dismissed the claimant.

Held by the EAT in finding that the dismissal was unfair and awarding the claimant €21,000 under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1997 to 2001 and €627.82 under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts 1973 to 2001 that the procedures afforded by the respondent were unfair and breached natural justice. The claimant was not informed of the purpose of the meeting and was not aware it was a disciplinary meeting. The differences between his version of events and the secretary's was not put to him. He was refused representation.

The Tribunal did not make any award for expenses against the respondent for unnecessary delay it caused by its failure to produce documents since the case would not have concluded on the first day of the hearing in any event.

The determination of the Tribunal was as follows: -
Respondent's Case:
1

The Administrator of the respondent company told the Tribunal that she was an employee of the respondent working in HR and that she had been a member of the Board of Directors at the relevant time; administering the scheme under which the Supervisor worked. The claimant/supervisor worked under a community employment scheme sponsored by the respondent. He was a supervisor and programme manager based in a branch office. In May 2002 he told the witness that the secretary in the office had complained about him to another sponsor (who was also a board member at the time). The secretary had complained that he had kissed her on the cheek. He was sorry that it happened. He said that he felt the whole thing was getting out of all proportion and he was worried about it. Later the witness discussed the matter with the board member to whom the secretary had made the complaint. They felt it was a serious matter and called a meeting of the Board of Directors to inform them about the matter.

2

They also called a meeting to interview the supervisor, the secretary, and Ms. O'D (the supervisor's partner). All three worked in the same office, but the secretary and Ms. O'D may not have worked at the same time. They wanted to hear each one's story. They interviewed the secretary first to get her side of the story. They then interviewed the supervisor. Their accounts of what happened differed. The supervisor said that he pecked the secretary on the cheek. She said that he kissed her on the neck. The supervisor's attitude was such that he couldn't understand...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT